News that billionaire Google co-founder Larry Page has been hiding out on and buying isolated private islands in Fiji to avoid tourists who aren’t allowed in once again underscores how the elite is using the fallout from the pandemic to segregate themselves from the general public.
Page has been living off grid for over a year and forced a state-owned news website to remove an article about his activities that was also de-listed by Google in an apparent effort to conceal his location.
“He has spent months in Fiji during the coronavirus pandemic – mostly on the island of Tavarua – and it has been rumored the billionaire has bought at least one island in the country’s Mamanuca archipelago,” reports the Daily Mail.
“Page has also been spotted an a smaller island called Namotu – which a sailor named Lorenzo Cipriani claimed Page bought in a blog post in August.”
Page, who has a net worth of $117 billion, making him the sixth-wealthiest person in the world, was able to take advantage of Fiji’s ‘Blue Lane’ program, which “lets the super wealthy visit the archipelago on their superyachts and private jets, even when other travelers were banned.”
So while Page gets to enjoy a sumptuous view of the South Pacific while being attended to on his luxury private island by 30 staff waiting on him, ordinary people who have lost their jobs, businesses and homes due to the lockdown aren’t even allowed to travel there.
Page’s story is just a microcosm of how wealthy elitists have rapaciously exploited the lockdowns that they have vehemently supported and facilitated to further expand the economic inequality gap and segregate themselves from the peasants.
While Page has his staff prepare him cocktails and the finest cuisine after a day of surfboarding in paradise, children in his home country are either permanently traumatized and afraid to go outside or literally committing suicide out of loneliness caused by lockdown.
Meanwhile, the World Economic Forum – architects of ‘the Great Reset’ that has been rapidly advanced thanks to lockdown policies – tells people that they’ll “own nothing and be happy.”
It tells them to look forward to their rental servitude under a system of neo-feudalism that will make home ownership completely unaffordable.
Meanwhile, Davos billionaires like Bill Gates are buying up huge swathes of property, with Gates recently becoming the largest owner of farmland in America.
In terms of individual land owners, Gates is still far behind media mogul John C. Malone, who is in top spot with 2.2 million acres of ranches and forests and CNN founder Ted Turner, who owns 2 million acres of ranch land.
Amazon’s Jeff Bezos is also “investing in land on a large scale,” according to Forbes.
While billionaire philanthropists and technocrats are acquiring land at an accelerating speed, they appear to be telling the general public that in the future private property will virtually cease to exist.
The WEF also celebrates the notion that “lockdowns are quietly improving cities,” greasing the skids for climate lockdowns and regulated air travel even as the likes of Page and his ilk jet off for luxury holidays whenever they please, absent the nuisance of those pesky tourists who might spoil their tranquility.
While our quality of life is eroded, while we have to take vaccines and jump through 100 flaming hoops to be allowed to travel internationally, they’re all completely exempt – exempt from the same rules they onerously impose on us.
Tourists are flushed out and banned from entering countries so Page and his rich friends can enjoy their days of pampered, opulent leisure in total seclusion.
Indeed, many elitists have expressed delight at how global lockdowns have left roads, airports and luxury resorts in Caribbean countries virtually empty, allowing them to avoid any interaction whatsoever with the unwashed masses.
This then has the knock-on impact of forcing low income workers to flood to western countries in search of work, exacerbating tensions caused by mass uncontrolled immigration.
Billionaires also exploited the pandemic to snuff out their remaining competition and create even more centralized monopolies.
Worldwide, the combined wealth of the world’s 10 richest men rose by $540bn during the first year of the pandemic, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos who saw his personal wealth grow by $86 billion as Amazon shares soared.
According to an Oxfam report, billionaires exploited the the impact of lockdown to create a “rigged economy,” causing expanding wealth inequality during the “worst economic downturn in a century.”
A record number of billionaires were also created in the UK during the pandemic even as millions of ordinary people lost their jobs and saw their businesses go under.
Meanwhile, lockdowns caused 150 million people globally to be pushed into extreme poverty.
But for those lucky enough to hold onto their jobs, they’re kept at arms length by ‘stay at home’ orders, remote working and Zoom calls, even as globalists continue to enjoy maskless BBQ parties at the G7 and socially un-distanced black tie dinners at Davos.
They still get to meet each other in person (while avoiding the worker drones), but you don’t.
None of this is anything new.
Since humanity began to divide into class systems, entrenched elites have always sought to aggressively separate themselves from the public, prevent the creation of a strong middle class, and maintain a poor service class that is only good for attending to their needs.
The major difference now is that the elite have built a giant technocracy which enables them to maintain total surveillance of the populations under their control, while they get to enjoy total exclusivity and privacy.
As Larry Page’s successful effort to get the article about his whereabouts removed from the news media proves, they get to conceal everything about their activities while demanding to know everything about yours.
They get to avoid attention and they get to avoid people knowing their location.
Meanwhile, your government health app knows your every locations and ‘pings’ you back under quarantine at the drop of a hat.
The advancement of robotics and artificial intelligence will also ensure that even much of the elite’s servant class will become obsolete in the near future.
This agenda will all be facilitated through puppet governments and private corporations, allowing Page, Gates, Zuckerberg and other billionaires to fade into the background and hide their role in the managed decline of civilization.
While they continue to inflict all of this upon humanity, we continue to bicker over identity politics, racism and all manner of relative trivialities that keep us divided and asleep.
And if you’re naive enough to think that this is all coming to an end as the coronavirus pandemic winds down, rest assured that there are many more ‘variants’ to be discovered and innumerable more reasons to put you back under lockdown.
Don’t worry though, because none of these restrictions will apply to Larry Page and his billionaire friends, who will remain totally isolated on their luxury private islands as the rest of the world goes to hell in a hand basket thanks to the economic warfare they declared on us.
In his address on the administration’s concerns about online health “misinformation” surrounding the pandemic, Biden’s Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said the misinformation concerns were focused on “equity.”
“Misinformation is a threat to our health, and the speed, scale and sophistication with which it is spreading is unprecedented,” Murthy said in the Thursday morning address. “I will not hesitate to say that and to call for greater accountability and action to address health misinformation.”
“A word about equity though,” he continued. “We recognize that equity must be at the center of our work to confront health misinformation. Here’s why: Because unequal access to the health care system, education and technology, means that some people have less access to accurate health information than others. And when those people instead encounter health misinformation, it can worsen their health outcomes, which exacerbates health inequity in what becomes a vicious cycle.”
The Surgeon General also highlighted what individuals can do to stop the spread of health misinformation.
“Last week, I issued a Surgeon General’s Advisory to call the nation’s attention to the threat of health misinformation. Since then, we have continued to emphasize what individuals can do to stop health misinformation in its tracks. That includes asking everyone to raise their own bar for sharing health information by checking to make sure it’s backed by credible scientific sources. As we say in the Advisory, if you’re not sure, don’t share.
“And we’ll continue to say that, on social media and in a video PSA we’ve created and released and in conversations we’re convening with people around the country. We’re also mobilizing other stakeholders to address misinformation. From technology companies and healthcare professionals, to researchers and community-based organizations. In fact, right after this briefing, my office will be hosting a conversation with community organizations around the country to address the steps that they can take to stop the spread of health misinformation.”
Murthy’s address was met with criticism on some social media quarters, especially considering the administration’s remarks on fighting the “health misinformation” over the past week.
Last week, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki revealed that the administration would be flagging vaccine misinformation content on behalf of Facebook. On Friday, Biden said Facebook was “killing people” by allowing vaccine misinformation to thrive on its platform.
On Monday, Psaki doubled down on her earlier remarks, saying the administration has not “taken any options off the table.”
She added that it was “up to Congress to determine how they want to proceed going forward. We are not in a war, or battle, with Facebook. We are in a battle with the virus.”
President Biden was himself this week accused of promoting misinformation when he falsely stated on a CNN town hall that those who are vaccinated won’t get COVID.
“We’re not in the position where we think that any virus, including the Delta virus, which is much more transmissible and more deadly in terms of unvaccinated people, the – the various shots that people are getting now cover that,” Biden said in Cincinnati, Ohio on Wednesday.
“You’re OK,” he suggested. “You’re not going to – you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”
Biden’s statements would fall foul of his and The Surgeon General’s censorship proposals and have not been censored online.
Mandating children to wear facemasks for long periods of time while at school and participating in other activities is an unprecedented move, one that was put into place despite no research showing the practice is safe. It’s not simply a case of “something is better than nothing,” because the act of mask wearing comes with a risk of adverse effects.
Now that the pandemic is more than a year behind us, evidence is starting to accumulate showing that the use of face masks in children may cause more harm than good. One of the latest studies noted that the evidence base for making face masks compulsory in schoolchildren is “weak,” and looked into their effects on carbon dioxide in inhaled air.1
Masks Increase Carbon Dioxide Inhalation
Your body produces carbon dioxide (CO2) as a byproduct of cellular function.2 This odorless, colorless gas is then transported via your blood to your lungs, where it is exhaled from your body. Normally, the CO2 then dissipates into the air around you before you take another breath. In the open air, carbon dioxide typically exists at about 400 parts per million (ppm), or 0.04% by volume.
The German Federal Environmental Office set a limit of CO2 for closed rooms of 2,000 ppm, or 0.2 percent by volume. If you’re wearing a facemask, the CO2 cannot escape as it usually does and instead becomes trapped in the mask. In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, researchers analyzed the CO2 content of inhaled air among children wearing two types of masks, as well as wearing no mask.3
Children in the study ranged in age from 6 to 17 years, with a mean age of 10.7. While no significant difference in CO2 was found between the two types of masks, there was a significant elevation when wearing masks compared to not wearing them.
CO2 in inhaled air under surgical and filtering facepiece masks came in between 13,120 ppm and 13,910 ppm, “which is higher than what is already deemed unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office by a factor of 6,” the researchers noted.4 Also important, this level was reached after only three minutes, while children wear masks at school for a mean of 270 minutes at a time.
Even the child who had the lowest measured CO2 level had a measurement threefold greater than the closed room CO2 limit of 0.2 percent. However, younger children appeared to have the highest CO2 values; a level of 25,000 ppm was measured from a 7-year-old wearing a facemask.5
The study attracted criticism and calls for retraction by those questioning mask risks to children, but in a thoughtful synopsis by Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, it’s noted that there are both benefits and risks to forcing children to wear masks.6
While large, empirical studies could answer the question of whether masks help or harm children, “we did literally zero of them,” Prasad said, and the CO2 study is attempting to add some clarity. He added:7
“Here is the real answer to the question of whether it’s worth it to mask kids: No one has any clue. During the last year and half, the scientific community has failed to answer these questions. Failed entirely.
We have no idea if masks work for 2-year-olds and above, 5 and above, 12 and above. No idea if they only work for some period of time. No idea if this is linked to community rates. No idea if the concerns over language loss offset the gains in reduced viral transmission, and if so, for what ages.”
Children’s Mask Complaints Could Be Caused by Elevated CO2
A German study using data from 25,930 children showed that 68% reported adverse effects from wearing facemasks.8 Among them, 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play.9
Hundreds more experienced “accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness.” Additional symptoms were also reported among the children, who wore facemasks for an average of 270 minutes a day:10
Reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44 percent)
Malaise (42 percent)
Impaired learning (38 percent)
Drowsiness or fatigue (37 percent)
Signs of mild to moderate hypercapnia, which is a buildup of CO2 in your bloodstream, include shortness of breath, daytime sluggishness, headache, daytime sleepiness and anxiety.11
Hypercapnia is often associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which makes it harder for you to breathe, but it can also be caused by activities that limit you from breathing fresh air, such as scuba diving or being on a ventilator.12,13 The researchers of the featured study believe, however, that the use of facemasks could lead to “impairments attributable to hypercapnia,” adding:14
“Most of the complaints reported by children can be understood as consequences of elevated carbon dioxide levels in inhaled air. This is because of the dead-space volume of the masks, which collects exhaled carbon dioxide quickly after a short time.
This carbon dioxide mixes with fresh air and elevates the carbon dioxide content of inhaled air under the mask, and this was more pronounced in this study for younger children … We suggest that decision-makers weigh the hard evidence produced by these experimental measurements accordingly, which suggest that children should not be forced to wear face masks.”
Nanoparticles, Pollutants Detected In Facemasks
Disposable plastic facemasks pose another risk in terms of the pollution they contain. A study by Swansea University researchers noted that 200 million disposable plastic facemasks are produced in China daily, and “improper and unregulated disposals” have led to a significant plastic pollution problem.15
The researchers submerged seven disposable facemask brands in water to simulate what happens with littering, when masks end up in waterways. Micro- and nanoscale fibers and particles and heavy metals, including lead, antimony and copper, were detected, raising significant environmental and public health concerns. According to a university news release:16
“The findings reveal significant levels of pollutants in all the masks tested — with micro/nano particles and heavy metals released into the water during all tests.
Researchers conclude this will have a substantial environmental impact and, in addition, raise the question of the potential damage to public health — warning that repeated exposure could be hazardous as the substances found have known links to cell death, genotoxicity and cancer formation.”
Not only are masks not being recycled, but their materials make them likely to persist and accumulate in the environment. Most disposable face masks contain three layers — a polyester outer layer, a polypropylene or polystyrene middle layer and an inner layer made of absorbent material such as cotton.
Polypropylene is already one of the most problematic plastics, as it’s widely produced and responsible for large waste accumulation in the environment. Leading researchers from the University of Southern Denmark and Princeton University also warned that masks could quickly become “the next plastic problem.”17
A performance study published in the June 2021 issue of Journal of Hazardous Materials18 also highlighted the little talked about fact that wearing masks poses a risk of microplastic inhalation, and reusing masks increases the risk.
The Link Between Masks And Advanced Stage Lung Cancer
A National Institutes of Health study19 published in February 2021 confirmed that when you wear a mask, most of the water vapor you would normally exhale remains in the mask, becomes condensed and is re-inhaled.20 They went so far as to suggest that wearing a moist mask and inhaling the humid air of your own breath was a good thing, because it would hydrate your respiratory tract.
But researchers from New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine revealed that when oral commensals — microbes that live in your mouth — are “enriched” in the lungs, it’s associated with cancer.21
Specifically, in a study of 83 adults with lung cancer, those with advanced-stage cancer had more oral commensals in their lungs than those with early-stage cancer. Those with an enrichment of oral commensals in their lungs also had decreased survival and worsened tumor progression.
While the study didn’t look into how mask usage could affect oral commensals in your lungs, they did note, “The lower airway microbiota, whether in health or disease state, are mostly affected by aspiration of oral secretions, and the lower airway microbial products are in constant interaction with the host immune system.“22
It seems highly likely that wearing a mask would accelerate the accumulation of oral microbes in your lungs, thereby raising the question of whether mask usage could be linked to advanced stage lung cancer.
Masks Developed That Test For COVID-19
Adding further support that masking leads to an accumulation of breath droplets, which you can then re-inhale, engineers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University developed a face mask that tests such droplets for the presence of COVID-19.23
The facemasks contain tiny, freeze-dried sensors surrounded by water. When the wearer pushes a button, the water is released, hydrating the sensor, which then begins the test.
Reportedly, the mask can diagnose COVID-19 within 90 minutes and is “as sensitive as the gold standard, highly sensitive PCR tests,“24 which have been fraught with trouble since the beginning of the pandemic.
CDC Study Finds Masks In Schools Had Little Effect On COVID
If children are risking inhalation of excessive levels of CO2 to wear masks at school, what benefit are they receiving in exchange? Very little, if any, according to a CDC study that compared the incidence of COVID-19 in Georgia kindergarten through grade 5 schools that were open for in-person learning in fall 2020 with various recommended prevention strategies, such as mandatory masks and improvements to ventilation.25
The study revealed that COVID-19 incidence was 37 percent lower in schools that required teachers and staff members to use masks and 39 percent lower in schools that improved ventilation, compared to schools that did not use these strategies.26
Because the COVID-19 incidence at the schools was extremely low to begin with, even with a 37 percent reduction in incidence from staff members wearing masks, that only reduced COVID-19 incidence by about one case in the entire school. When students were masked, it also made virtually no difference. Further, ventilation led to better outcomes, reducing incidence by 39 percent.
Dilution methods, which work by diluting the number of airborne particles, include opening windows and doors or using fans. This led to a 35 percent lower incidence of COVID-19, while methods to filter airborne particles, such as using HEPA filtration systems with or without ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, led to a 48 percent lower incidence.
More States Ban Mask Mandates In Schools
While the CDC continues to recommend “universal and correct use of masks and physical distancing” in kindergarten through grade 12 schools,27 a number of states, including Texas, Iowa, South Carolina and Arkansas, are defying the CDC’s nonsensical advice and proceeding to ban mask mandates in public schools or at least make mask usage optional.28
In addition to the physical risks, experts have warned that masks are likely to be causing psychological harm to children and interfering with their development.29 All of these risks come at little benefit to children, as, one expert report noted, “Figures illustrate that the risk of death from this disease for this age group is negligible … To introduce these [compulsory face covering measures] without detailed, thorough and meticulous risk assessment, is potentially reckless.“30
Mass, peaceful protests are often effective at compelling change, so if you’re unhappy with the facemask policies at your child’s school, contact your local district and let them know.
A new study by a team of researchers at Oxford has found that of the one million schoolchildren sent home and forced to self-isolate for 10 days every week last term, 98.4% did not go on to develop Covid. The Telegraphhas more.
Forcing hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren to self-isolate because a classmate had Covid was unnecessary as daily testing would have been as effective, an official study suggests.
The results of the study, by the University of Oxford, emerged on the last day of term for most schools, when more than one million pupils are off because of the virus and after months of disruption to education. […]
The team behind the study said the results also offered reassurance for policymakers trying to end the pingdemic because they showed that the virus could be controlled in a less “destructive” way.
It came as the latest figures revealed that up to one million people a week are being asked to isolate in England and Wales, with record numbers being pinged by the NHS app.
The Oxford study found that 98.4 per cent of children who were sent home for 10 days never went on to develop Covid – a result set to anger parents and pupils forced to stay at home needlessly.
For those that can’t get past the Telegraph‘s paywall, BBC News also has the story.
This study complements numerous other studies – such as this one in Sweden – showing that very, very few people are infected with COVID-19 in schools, whether children or staff, and that school closures were completely unnecessary. Bizarrely, the BBC quotes the lead author of the Oxford study describing his findings as “good news” since it means sending a million schoolchildren home every week just in case they have Covid can now be replaced by daily testing, with only those who test positive being sent home. But, of course, it isn’t “news” since we’ve know how pointless the quarantining of healthy schoolchildren is for at least a year. And I suspect parents of school-age children (like me) won’t regard this news as “good”, so much as confirmation of their worst fears, namely, that their children’s sacrifice over the past 16 months has been for nought.
First CNBC set up the story. It provided facts that actually don’t mean very much but sound frightening. It said the virus is 1,000 times more transmissible than the original. In fact, precisely this strategy was used in the early days of Covid.
The variant is highly contagious, largely because people infected with the delta strain can carry up to 1,000 times more virus in their nasal passages than those infected with the original strain, according to new data.
At the onset of the pandemic, in March 2020, SARS-2 was alleged to be 1,000 times more transmissible than SARS-1. And today, the hot story is that the Delta variant is 1,000 times more transmissible than the original strain of SARS-2. Which would make it 1 million times more transmissible than SARS-1.
But what does that really mean? In the real world, more transmissibility is generally associated with lowered virulence. And that is precisely the case when you compare SARS-1 and SARS-2, and the Delta versus the original Covid strain. Each has considerably less virulence than the earlier coronavirus.
It means the Delta variant might be as transmissible as the flu. And it happens to be the least virulent of the seven variants being evaluated in the UK.
Now that you have gotten everyone’s attention, you throw in some quotes from the CDC Director, who happily obliges with more meaningless drivel:
“The delta variant is more aggressive and much more transmissible than previously circulating strains,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky told reporters at a briefing Thursday. “It is one of the most infectious respiratory viruses we know of, and that I have seen in my 20-year career.”
Aggressive sounds pretty bad, but what does it mean? In fact, it has no medical meaning. The claim of high transmissibility is repeated, while nothing else is being said.
“In hospitals around the country, 97% of people admitted with Covid symptoms are unvaccinated, and 99.5% of all Covid deaths are also among the unvaccinated.”
The numbers cannot be verified by the press, or by me, or by anyone who does not have an official list of the vaccinated. Most people were vaccinated in mass clinics. The vaccinations are not in their medical records. There are no insurance claims for the vaccine, which was free. While the states and CDC do have those lists, somewhere, CDC has previously claimed it could not match the list of the vaccinated to reported post-vaccination deaths to corroborate and evaluate them.
In the UK, with similar vaccination rates as the US, it was reported that the majority of hospitalizations are occurring in the VACCINATED. This according to Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK’s chief science advisor, who is also known as a member of the Fauci Covid origin cover-up cabal.
According to Reuters, Vallance now says he misspoke.
Vallance earlier said at a news conference with Prime Minister Boris Johnson that 60% of people being admitted to hospital with COVID-19 have had two doses of vaccine.
“Correcting a statistic I gave at the press conference,” Vallance said on Twitter. “About 60% of hospitalisations from COVID are not from double vaccinated people, rather 60% of hospitalisations from COVID are currently from unvaccinated people.”
When the public has no means of verification, the media (as well as government officials) can say anything they please. How does 99.5% sound? There’s nothing stopping you. So why not go for broke? And if there is pushback, just change the numbers tomorrow.
ACCORDING to his resentful former chief of staff, last October Boris Johnson initially resisted another national lockdown because, as paraphrased by Dominic Cummings, ‘The people dying are essentially all over 80 and we can’t kill the economy just because of people dying over 80.’
Even if the words attributed to Johnson are not verbatim, the sentiment is consistent with the reservations the Prime Minister put in writing at the time, when he questioned the need to reimpose restrictions for ‘Covid fatalities [having] a median age . . . that is above life expectancy’.
Cummings and BBC interviewer Laura Kuenssberg cosily concurred that Johnson’s reluctance to reinstate restraints was an egregious example of him ‘putting his own political interests ahead of people’s lives’. The detractors who decry Johnson for having been insufficiently authoritarian will no doubt agree and accuse him of callous indifference; however, it is difficult to understand how defying the large, loud and influential pro-lockdown lobby would have been in ‘his own political interests’.
Despite his apparent reservations, at the end of October 2020 Johnson did of course succumb to the siren calls and issued a further stay-at-home order – again enraging sceptics for whom lockdowns have been a dementedly disproportionate response and an unconscionable violation of our freedoms.
From the lockdown addicts, there is much confected shock and outrage that last autumn Johnson did not concentrate solely on the coronavirus casualties, but instead wanted to weigh the titanic trade-offs between lives, livelihoods and liberty. From those of us who deplore him being a stooge for scheming scientists and mendacious modellers, there is surprise that the Johnson of October 2020 seemingly was still capable of rational and independent thought, albeit he soon surrendered to the scaremongers.
Nine months on, this week’s pusillanimous performance by Johnson confirms that he has been completely captured by the public health partisans. On what was bogusly billed as ‘freedom day’, it was horrifying to hear the UK Prime Minister announce: ‘I would remind everybody that some of life’s most important pleasures and opportunities are likely to be increasingly dependent on vaccination.’
A chilling prospect, and a dystopia which Johnson warns might only be two months away: ‘By the end of September . . . we’re planning to make full vaccination a condition of entry to nightclubs and other venues where large crowds gather. Proof of a negative test will no longer be enough.’
To be clear: this is the science editor – repeat, science editor – of an allegedly conservative newspaper arguing that young people should not only submit to a coerced and unnecessary medical procedure but also be grateful for a lesson in morality.
Knapton should be ashamed of herself, as should Boris Johnson for even suggesting that vaccination status should be a condition of entry to any social gathering. Regardless of whether it is a tactical threat or a repressive promise, from the British Prime Minister it is reprehensible rhetoric.
Leave aside the impracticalities and suspect science which underpins the plan: Conservative MPs should publicly oppose on principle this contemptible plan which Big Brother Watch accurately describes as ‘divisive, discriminatory and wrong’.
Depressingly, most Tories are too lily-livered to resist, and at the time of writing only 42 of the parliamentary party have pledged: ‘We oppose the divisive and discriminatory use of Covid status certification to deny individuals access to general services, businesses or jobs.’
So far Big Brother Watch’s petition against Covid passes has been signed by almost as many LibDem and Labour MPs. Right now, there is more reason to respect signatories Diane Abbot, Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler than the unconcerned and cowardly Conservatives.
We sat down with Dr. Byram Bridle, an associate Professor of Viral Immunology, Department of Pathobiology at the University of Guelph. Here’s the article that we discussed: https://theconversation.com/a-year-of…
Destroy their education. Destroy their jobs and their job prospects. Destroy their social life, their friendships, their mental health. Force them to work long hours at school or in physically demanding jobs in uncomfortable and breath-inhibiting face masks. This is what our country has done to our young people in the past 16 months.
Why? In an attempt (and not a very successful one) to protect a small minority of mostly elderly folk who are particularly vulnerable to one disease while we wait in limbo to develop a vaccine and roll it out to the vulnerable population.
Then do we give them back their freedom? Not at all. Then we move the goalposts, making freedom conditional on more and more people getting the vaccine. Until we make it to so-called ‘Freedom Day’, a month later than originally planned, and Boris Johnson chooses then to tell young people that their freedom to do the things they enjoy will be dependent on receiving a vaccine.
A vaccine that uses experimental technology and was rushed through trials without waiting for the full safety data (trials which will never now conclude as the control groups have been vaccinated). A vaccine, or rather vaccines, which the authorities now acknowledge increase the risk of dangerous blood clotting and heart conditions, particularly in younger people. Vaccines for which there are now more reports of fatalities in the U.S. than all other vaccines put together for the past 30 years.
The E.U.’s own infectious disease journal Eurosurveillance has just published a study concluding that, when it comes to the AstraZeneca vaccine and blood clots, “in young adults, the risks were similar or higher than the benefits”.
Bear in mind this is just considering one side effect based on the reported incidence. It doesn’t take into account other side effects and under-reporting.
That’s the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is now discouraged for under 40s in the U.K. Are Pfizer and Moderna vaccines much better? Warnings have recently been added to them that they cause serious heart conditions in some cases. What else might emerge as the data is properly analysed?
The decision whether to take a particular vaccine, given the risk and potential benefit, is a personal one, and we can hardly blame the minority of young adults who appear to be concluding they’d rather take their chances with the virus, from which they’re also likely to get better immunity.
Any kind of threat of withdrawal of benefits for failure to take a medicine, let alone an experimental medicine, undermines informed consent. For that matter, the paucity of information provided on the real risk of side effects and the real age-specific level of benefit undermines informed consent.
Our young people have been betrayed again and again by this Government, which seems to have reached a place where it regards them primarily as vectors of disease who must be coerced into taking the prescribed medicine to make them clean enough to allow out and about. Yet the evidence that the vaccines are particularly good at preventing the spread of infection is patchy at best.
Our leaders should be ashamed of themselves for how they have abused young people and their trust, jeopardised their health and strangled their aspirations.
Sadly, I don’t think enough of them are sufficiently alive yet to the full horror of what has been pointlessly done to them in the last year and a bit to realise how angry they should be. But if they ever do wake up to it, there will be a terrible political reckoning.
Labour Party leader Keir Starmer has gone home to self-isolate this afternoon. The media has been told that one of his children has tested positive for covid.
According to the BBC:
A statement from his office said one of his children tested positive at lunchtime, but Sir Keir was doing daily tests and tested negative this morning.
Sir Keir was in the House of Commons for PMQs earlier. The PM and chancellor are also self-isolating after contact with the health secretary who tested positive.
This is the fourth time Sir Keir has had to self-isolate since the pandemic began. His spokesman said his family will also be self-isolating.
I’ve no proof whatsoever, but I call bullshit. The media has spent much of the past 48 hours discussing the NHS app and “pingdemic.” Millions of people have been pinged by the app and told to go home and isolate. It’s led to total chaos.
Business owners are tearing their hair out as staff shortages threaten the post-lockdown economic bounce. There are widespread reports that millions of younger people are deleting the app from their phones. Nobody wants to be forced into isolation, especially at this time of year.
The managers of the scamdemic, the entire political class and the media, are horrified that so many are deleting the wretched app. Maybe Johnson, Health Secretary Sajid Javid and Labour leader Keir Starmer have been sent to self-isolate to set an example.
You’d be well within your rights to ask me why. Because chaos is their desired outcome. They want to destroy the economy and cause a shortage of food and other products. They want to bankrupt businesses. They want to bankrupt you. Chaos is the plan.
Ordo Ab Chao. Order out of chaos. All roads lead to The World Economic Forum’s Great Reset. The people will only accept it when their worlds are turned upside-down.
The public is being manipulated 24/7 by the political class and the media working in tandem. They want you in a perpetual state of agitation and confusion. You become even more suggestible while in that low vibrational state.
There’s no covid now. There’s no threat if there ever was one. People should not be taking instructions from their phones to drop everything and rush home to isolate. It’s tyranny. People seem to be wising up to it and ditching the app. It’s about bloody time.
How convenient then, that the PM and the leader of the opposition party should be pinged and sent home, while at the same time the media is attacking anyone who suggests it’s time to move on and get on with our lives.
Friends, gammons, countrymen, lend me your shell-likes. Take out your phone. Press your thumb or forefinger on the NHS app. Hold it down for a second. It’ll give you options. Choose delete app. Good job. Now, never take a PCR or lateral flow test again.
Congratulations. You have ended the scamdemic. Go about your business. By the way, it’s not a bad idea to switch off the 24-hour news channels either.
Listening to BBC radio this morning, I was genuinely surprised to learn that a significant proportion of the population is labouring under the misapprehension that keeping the NHS app on their phones is compulsory. It isn’t. It’s entirely voluntary.
Problems arise when you are pinged and then contacted by a track and trace call-centre to inform you that you were in contact with someone who tested positive. At that point you risk being fined if you don’t isolate for the specified time and answer your phone when they call you to confirm that you are complying.
So delete the feckin app! Do it now and stop being tested. How thick do you need to be to have a test when you are healthy? Use your God given brain. It’s a trap.
How can I put it in a way that it is universally understood? Healthy man take test. Test faulty. Test come back positive. Man must isolate. Government say cases rising. Must impose restrictions. People must have jab.
It’s Kafkaesque, but the people still hold all the aces. It’s very simple. Delete the bastard app and tell them to get stuffed when they ask you to have a test. If you haven’t had a jab yet, don’t. You’ll be amazed at how quickly this will go away.
Here is Craig Kelly presenting his evidence of Ivermectin suppression to an empty Australian parliament. This picture illustrates the type of ‘democracy’ that we have in Australia today. The people’s voice is not being heard by our government.
In the discussion regarding COVID-19 vaccination of children, several aspects seem to be missing.
First, vaccination of children is based on a small Pfizer-sponsored phase 3 trial of 2260 adolescents randomized to BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine or saline. The resulting paper concludes that the vaccine ”had a favorable safety profile”(1). However, based on data presented in supplementary table 2, in the age group 12-15 years, 7/1131 vaccinated vs. 2/1129 unvaccinated had a severe adverse event (1), i.e. a 3-fold increased risk. In the 16-25 years age group presented in the same paper, 9/536 vaccinated vs. 3/561 unvaccinated had a severe adverse event (1), i.e. likewise a 3-fold increased risk. The combined results indicate a 3.28 (95% confidence interval 1.21 to 8.94)-fold increased risk in severe adverse events in the vaccinated adolescents/young adults (2). In absolute numbers, 1 of 100 vaccinated experienced a severe event, vs. 3 of 1000 unvaccinated. Data was not presented by sex.
A protective vaccine can have negative non-specific and sex-differential effects on overall health (3). For instance, a protective measles vaccine had to be withdrawn after being associated with 2-fold higher all-cause mortality for females (4). A partially protective malaria vaccine was recently likewise associated with 2-fold higher female mortality (5). These epidemiological observations indicate that while the vaccines protected against the target disease, they increased the susceptibility to other diseases. In other words, the specific protection came at the price of increased susceptibility to other diseases. This epidemiological phenomenon of negative non-specific effects has been linked to innate immune tolerance (3, 6). Though the number of participants was small, the only study so far of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine indicates that this vaccine induces innate immune tolerance towards bacterial and viral ligands (7). Thus, protection against COVID-19 could come at the price of increased risk of other infections.
Other pandemic vaccines have later been found out to have caused rare but severe side effects, like Guillain-Barré syndrome in recipients of flu vaccines in 1976, and narcolepsy linked to one brand of swine flu influenza vaccine in 2009(8). None of the phase 3 trials of COVID-19 vaccines were designed to study either non-specific sex-differential effects, or rare but severe long-term side effects (8).
Given the low risk of severe COVID-19 in previously healthy children – none in the Pfizer-sponsored phase 3 trial (1) – it is not clear that vaccine benefits outweigh harm in healthy children.
Second, arguments for vaccinating children include that infection in children could lead to more dangerous variants. Variants of concern have typically been the result of persistent infections in immunocompromised people that can cause the virus to mutate more frequently because the person’s immune system cannot clear the virus as quickly as the immune system of a healthy person (9). Presumably healthy children, who typically have very mild/short-lasting infections, are unlikely to give rise to variants of concern. Noteworthy, individuals, who have had COVID-19 infection, will likely have broad resistance towards SARS-CoV2 variants(10), and thus contribute importantly to herd immunity.
This leads us to the third point: Should COVID-19 be a vaccine disease or a childhood disease? There has been surprisingly little discussion about the future of COVID-19. Many people seem to assume that COVID-19 will become a disease for which we vaccinate the whole population perhaps annually or biannually. This will be expensive – and potentially harmful, if the (repeated) vaccinations have negative effects. We do not think vaccination of the whole population is necessary either; in fact, it may be counter-productive for society.
The known endemic human Corona-viruses (HCoV) infect most people before age 15; thereafter people may become re-infected again, but as evidenced by the lack of IgM responses, the response is a recall response (11). These HCoV rarely cause severe disease until the age of immunosenescence and we would never contemplate vaccinating against HCoVs at the population level, even if vaccines existed.
Given that we are so lucky that SARS-CoV2 very rarely cause severe disease in children, the safest and cheapest way forward seems to be to tame SARS-CoV2 to a common childhood disease like other HCoV. This would happen by allowing SARS-CoV2 to infect children, who thereby likely become protected against severe disease well into late adulthood. Importantly, this transition of SARS-CoV2 into a childhood disease would be delayed if there is too little SARS-CoV2 circulating. As noted by others: “Once most adults are vaccinated, circulation of SARS-CoV-2 may in fact be desirable, as it is likely to lead to primary infection early in life when disease is mild, followed by booster re-exposures throughout adulthood … This would keep reinfections mild and immunity up to date”(12).
In conclusion, there are good arguments why not vaccinating children may in fact serve several purposes at the individual as well as at the societal level:
• Not vaccinating children protects children against the potential unknown harms of COVID-19 vaccinations.
• Not vaccinating children gives them the opportunity to develop a broad natural immunity, contributing to herd immunity, and speeding up the transition of SARS-CoV2 into a childhood disease.
The avoided costs of making COVID-19 a vaccine disease, for which we vaccinate the whole population maybe annually or biannually, could be well spent on other health related issues such as smoking, cancer, obesity, and mental health.
References:
1. Frenck RW, Jr., Klein NP, Kitchin N, Gurtman A, Absalon J, Lockhart S, et al. Safety, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine in Adolescents. N Engl J Med. 2021.
2. Benn CS. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/christine-stabell-benn_safety-immunogenic…. LinkedIn post 2021.
3. Benn CS, Fisker AB, Rieckmann A, Sørup S, Aaby P. Vaccinology: time to change the paradigm? Lancet Infect Dis. 2020.
4. Aaby P, Jensen H, Samb B, Cisse B, Sodemann M, Jakobsen M, et al. Differences in female-male mortality after high-titre measles vaccine and association with subsequent vaccination with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and inactivated poliovirus: reanalysis of West African studies. Lancet. 2003;361(9376):2183-8.
5. Klein SL, Shann F, Moss WJ, Benn CS, Aaby P. RTS,S Malaria Vaccine and Increased Mortality in Girls. MBio. 2016;7(2):e00514-16.
6. Blok BA, de Bree LCJ, Diavatopoulos DA, Langereis JD, Joosten LAB, Aaby P, et al. Interacting, Nonspecific, Immunological Effects of Bacille Calmette-Guerin and Tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis Inactivated Polio Vaccinations: An Explorative, Randomized Trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(3):455-63.
7. Föhse FK, Geckin B, Overheul GJ, van de Maat J, Kilic G, Bulut O, et al. The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses. medRxiv. 2021:2021.05.03.21256520.
8. Doshi P. Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us. Bmj. 2020;371:m4037.
9. Peacock TP, Penrice-Randal R, Hiscox JA, Barclay WS. SARS-CoV-2 one year on: evidence for ongoing viral adaptation. J Gen Virol. 2021;102(4).
10. Ferretti AP, Kula T, Wang Y, Nguyen DMV, Weinheimer A, Dunlap GS, et al. Unbiased Screens Show CD8(+) T Cells of COVID-19 Patients Recognize Shared Epitopes in SARS-CoV-2 that Largely Reside outside the Spike Protein. Immunity. 2020;53(5):1095-107.e3.
11. Zhou W, Wang W, Wang H, Lu R, Tan W. First infection by all four non-severe acute respiratory syndrome human coronaviruses takes place during childhood. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:433.
12. Lavine JS, Bjornstad O, Antia R. Vaccinating children against SARS-CoV-2. BMJ. 2021;373:n1197.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Christine S Benn & Professor Peter Aaby
Bandim Health Project, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark
Studiestræde 6, 1455 Copenhagen K, Denmark
@StabellBenn
I doubt these professors have anything to fear from a food tax
By Eric Worrall | Watts Up With That? | November 19, 2016
A group of researchers in Oxford University, England have suggested that imposing a massive tax on carbon intensive foods – specifically protein rich foods like meat and dairy – could help combat climate change. […]
This proposal, from a group of people who have probably never missed a meal in their lives, is totally obscene. High income countries often have a lot of poor people who would be hard hit by increases in the price of food.
Needlessly exacerbating the risk poor people don’t get enough to eat, especially children and pregnant mothers, who are especially vulnerable to adverse health impacts from lack of protein in their diet – if this ghastly proposal is ever implemented, future generations will look upon it as a crime against humanity. – Read full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Friends, gammons, countrymen, lend me your shell-likes. Take out your phone. Press your thumb or forefinger on the NHS app. Hold it down for a second. It’ll give you options. Choose delete app. Good job. Now, never take a PCR or lateral flow test again.
Aletho News
Aletho News 